how many more american soldiers have to die before President Bush admitted his Iraqi adventure is a failure ?

Question

believed it or not , Saddam would have had died of old age anyway had we left him alone in the first place . it is immoral , if not stupid , to claim Iraq now is a better place knowing no westerners or western reporters dare to venture out without an army of bodyguards , it wasn't like that under Saddam .

to some people they might see my question is a waste of time , what harm does it make compared to the waste of american lives in this Iraqi adventure ?

Answer 1

Around 400,000 American soldiers died during World War II. Was WWII a "failure" because so many troops died? If you include all countries who lost service men, over 25,000,000 soldiers died. That figure, of course, doesn't include all the civilian deaths, which is around 42 million.

My point? The Iraq War, historically speaking, just doesn't compare casualty-wise to World War II, World War I or even the Civil War. Also, most people don't judge whether a war was successful or even right by how many people died. While I agree that casualties are a very important factor, World War II is generally considered a noble and righteous war if there ever was one, even though the United States, Great Britain, and France indiscriminately bombed civilians. (That's not really the practice of the US military any more.)

I just want you to admit why the casualties are of such grave concern to you. You never supported the war. The casualties are an excuse, not the reason you oppose the war so intensely.

Answer 2

Well, according to Bush it isn't a failure because he achieved what he set out to do i.e. finish dad's war with Saddam and get a huge foothold in the Near East where the biggest oil reserves are.
Pity so many US citizens can't see through their low-intelligence president's lies and deceits. But I'm not blaming him alone as most politicians world-wide are pretty much the same and for the same reasons.
You can't really measure the succes or failure of a war in terms of body count, you know.
It wasn't Bush's lies or truths that matter, nor the intend of the US or any of their allies that matter. Its consequences that matter and its far too early to tell what the long-term consequence of the whole Iraq mess will be. I do believe thought that long-term effects may be disastrous as I fully agree that fighting terrorism with open military might and warfare is not truly the answer. Enough evidence of it world-wide, current and historical.

Answer 3

Why are we even discussing this? What we need to do is get the freaking politicians OUT of the system. Their job is to turn the military loose and let them do the fighting. If a soldier can't return fire when fired upon, what is the point of them being there. We can't expect the situation to change until we let the military do what they are trained to do. KILL the ENEMY!
We at home are being demoralized by the press. There is no freedom of the press over there, that is why they have to have military guards. I feel we need to go back to the way it was in WWII. The press stays in another country, and reports what the combat correspondents give them. People who have never served in the military have no business reporting on the actions of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
Also Geraldo should have been prosecuted for giving away troop movements on live TV.

Answer 4

I can't believe how many Americans have allowed Bush to pull the wool over their eyes and still can't see through his lies.

Yes Saddam Hussain was a brutal dictator but he was/is not the only one in the world and looking at it maybe that is what a country like Iraq needed anyway. He was never a threat to the west and there were and never had been any links to terrorist organisations, this was all manufactured by Bush for his own twisted purposes, face up to it. Saddam is a big red herring.

It is only since the invasion that every islamic terrorist organisation going has jumped into Iraq and is using it to further their cause.

Where in the world has military force ever pemanently suppressed terrorist activity?

Until Bush and his military realise they will not win by military might alone and start putting their efforts into other resoloutions many more American (and British etc) soldiers will die for no gain whatsoever.

Answer 5

President George W. Bush is an inspiration to me...and he is a brilliant man who has led our country honorably...for you to denounce him..and say that what he has done in Iraq is a failure..you should be executed just like Sadam because you are a gutless coward and a traitor to USA...I would assume that you complain about gas prices as well..well we are building a pipeline there which will dramatically drop prices once we finish it...as for american loss in life...you are disgracing their good name by saying that they gave their lives for nothing! They died for our country and they died to protect the lives and rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi gov't is not strong enough to stand up to its opposers and they are grateful for our help..once we leave...terrorists will take over again..thats why we are stll there...we care for the other people that we share this earth with....I don't care if every single soldier dies over there...they are there because they want to be, they believe in their cause, and they are motivated by the support we give them here..and to have people like you say that they are no good is blasfomy...screw you and your unsupported opinion...

Answer 6

Bush will never admit that he was wrong.Iraqi adventure proved US supremacy.It has got control over oil resources.US arms manufacturing industry is happy and keeps the economy fine.Post war reconstruction will be great gain for US industry.Replacement and sale arms new Govt in Iraq will increase US income.In war few soldiers will be the cost for winning.Is it a failure?

Answer 7

Adventure? You're question is just a disgrace. Our people are fighting and dying for a free Iraq, and you are too busy whining with your pickets in the air. I find it funny how people whine about Americans being at war WHEN THEY HAVE NEVER SERVED IN THE US MILITARY. Join the mililtary, travel to Iraq, and then tell me how you think this war is a waste. Everyone wants to blame the President because they are ignorant as to what is important in this world; that obviously being something aside from yourself.

Answer 8

i dont see that at all what i see is a man who went in for all the wrong reasons but is now genuinely commited to securing a stable iraq, lets make no bones about it many iraqis are far better off now and will be in the future due to the invasion.
a country that was once dominated by a wild dictator and family is now slowly starting to get back on its feet, no one can say they thought it would be a walk over in just a few days and if you thought it was your very nieve.
american soldiers are amongst the most dedicated in the world you only have to look at vietnam for that, these brave men and women are fighting and dying so a country can regain its legs, and as toby keith sang in american soldier, "freedom dont come free".
men and women have fought since the dawn of time for freedom and george bush is just trying to get the job done.

Answer 9

Yes Saddam Hussain was a brutal dictator but he was/is not the only one in the world and looking at it maybe that is what a country like Iraq needed anyway. He was never a threat to the west and there were and never had been any links to terrorist organisations, this was all manufactured by Bush for his own twisted purposes, face up to it. Saddam is a big red herring.

Answer 10

In Vietnam, between 1957 and 1975, the US Armed Forces sustained some 58,000 fatalities (including 47,00 killed in action), plus around 30,000 wounded, half of them serious cases. It wasn't until after the Tet Offensive of 1968 (and arguably even later still) that US public and governmental opinion simultaneously began to turn against the war.

Does that help to set in context the US casualties in Iraq to date (3,528 killed and 26,129 wounded as at 19-Jun-2007)?

In any case, while the public presentation from mid-2003 onwards was that the 'war' was over and the troops would be returning home, anyone with any insight knew in early 2003 that, once the US and UK committed forces to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, they'd be in Iraq for the long haul. A continued military presence in Iraq is the inevitable result of having gone in there in the first place. It doesn't represent a failure at all, but a logical consequence of decisions taken in 2002-03.